And it's that emotional level of response that leads me to believe that some may not have realized just how deeply they believe. It's an example of lashing out when something important to you is threatened.

Well, first, you're attributing far more emotion than is actually justifiable. Second, even if the amount of emotion you're attributing were justifiable, how precisely would you determine that it were due to "deep belief" rather than other alternatives?

You couldn't. Someone could just be frustrated with your method of argumentation, for instance. Someone could be having a bad day for reasons completely unrelated to the argument, and have that come through in what they wrote. Someone could have just dropped a hot iron on their foot. There are multiple possible reasons for any apparent emotional response.

Quote:

Do you believe there is at least a reasonable possibility that a deity has ever existed?

There's a possibility. I've not seen evidence that would lead me to what I would consider a reasonable belief that it actually occurred. English worded it well.

So, now that we've got that wrapped up, please describe how it's valid to claim "Numbers are prime" simply on the basis that there are some prime numbers, given that your argument that atheistm is a religion boils down to "some atheists believe there is no god with faith and ardor".

"Some x are y, therefore all x are y" is just not at all a valid argument without showing that all x are actually y in the first place (or showing that there's some reason all x /have to be/ y, as in an inductive mathematical proof). Any single x that does not meet condition y pitches the argument out the window, and you've been presented with people who do not believe a deity exists, but do not do so with ardor and faith.

If you really don't get why "well, some are" is not a valid argument for your position, I feel sorry for you, just a little bit. However, given that your response wasn't actually directed at whether or not you've committed one of the two fallacies I've presented, I strongly suspect you do in fact realize your argument is fallacious, and your response was just an attempt to avoid the point I made.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

You keep asking this question as though it has great meaning. You have asked it of me, you now ask it of void and you have asked it of others. All of us have the same answer. There is an unreasonable possibility that a deity has existed. That is, all ideas are possible until proven false and this particular idea is non falsifiable so can never be proven false. It is an idea outside the realm of truth and falsehood! Hence there is some room for an ever so small possibility that there has been a deity.

English

Belief beyond a reasonable doubt is a strong indicator. It's strong enough that if you can get 12 people to agree, you can be convicted of a crime, not that any belief is a crime or anything like that.

That's all. It has meaning, but only what its meaning is meant to mean.

Well, first, you're attributing far more emotion than is actually justifiable. Second, even if the amount of emotion you're attributing were justifiable, how precisely would you determine that it were due to "deep belief" rather than other alternatives?

You couldn't. Someone could just be frustrated with your method of argumentation, for instance. Someone could be having a bad day for reasons completely unrelated to the argument, and have that come through in what they wrote. Someone could have just dropped a hot iron on their foot. There are multiple possible reasons for any apparent emotional response.

There's a possibility. I've not seen evidence that would lead me to what I would consider a reasonable belief that it actually occurred. English worded it well.

So, now that we've got that wrapped up, please describe how it's valid to claim "Numbers are prime" simply on the basis that there are some prime numbers, given that your argument that atheistm is a religion boils down to "some atheists believe there is no god with faith and ardor".

"Some x are y, therefore all x are y" is just not at all a valid argument without showing that all x are actually y in the first place (or showing that there's some reason all x /have to be/ y, as in an inductive mathematical proof). Any single x that does not meet condition y pitches the argument out the window, and you've been presented with people who do not believe a deity exists, but do not do so with ardor and faith.

If you really don't get why "well, some are" is not a valid argument for your position, I feel sorry for you, just a little bit. However, given that your response wasn't actually directed at whether or not you've committed one of the two fallacies I've presented, I strongly suspect you do in fact realize your argument is fallacious, and your response was just an attempt to avoid the point I made.

We've been talking for a couple of years now, no?

I've noticed a pattern, maybe you haven't noticed it, or maybe I'm wrong, and there is no pattern.

But it seems to me that your belief that their is no deity, and belief in the supporting tenets (Abiogenesis & Uninvolved beginning to the Big Bang) seem to suggest a firm belief. You seem energetically vigorous in your belief. But that's just my impression.

It's no big deal, it's just my opinion derived from my own perspective, which is fairly unique. You are exactly the same person (or close enough) that you were yesterday, regardless of what I think.

I've noticed a pattern, maybe you haven't noticed it, or maybe I'm wrong, and there is no pattern.

But it seems to me that your belief that their is no deity, and belief in the supporting tenets (Abiogenesis & Uninvolved beginning to the Big Bang) seem to suggest a firm belief. You seem energetically vigorous in your belief. But that's just my impression.

If you have that impression, I figure it's quite likely to be because you *want* to have that impression. If you think there's a pattern, I submit that you're ignoring evidence that goes against that pattern (for instance - have you read the "Creationism is Child Abuse" trhead? Do my responses fit your "pattern"? If I'm threatened by religion, as you have claimed, why would I argue that freedom of thought requires that we not treat merely telling a child something is false as child abuse? Why would I be perfectly fine with a child bringing a Bible to school to read as long as she did so of her own will and not because of pressure from the school? Or do you even remember the threads like that?).

Quote:

You are exactly the same person (or close enough) that you were yesterday, regardless of what I think.

Certainly. However, you're still avoiding the point.

Do you consider the statement "Some numbers are prime, therefore numbers are prime" to be logically valid proof that numbers are prime?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

You've still got it wrong though. It's not the belief in the lack of gods beyond a reasonable doubt, it's, with no reason to believe that gods exist (other then other people believe because of what their parents* told them) it is unreasonable to believe they do.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

If there were atheist friars, I'd nominate you for the position. Scourge, really? Blatant religious intolerance of other beliefs. That's all.

Evangelical atheism happens. It happened long before I became interested in it, and much longer before I ever posted on GT.

Not my fault, I'm just the messenger.

Ah, now it's about me, right? Anything to shift the conversation away from the point you were called on, got it. Really, it makes no difference to me if you want to cling to ignorance with ardor and faith. I'm ok with it.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Ah, now it's about me, right? Anything to shift the conversation away from the point you were called on, got it. Really, it makes no difference to me if you want to cling to ignorance with ardor and faith. I'm ok with it.

Seems to think if he believes in trolling with ardor and faith its a religion and belongs here.

Belief beyond a reasonable doubt is a strong indicator. It's strong enough that if you can get 12 people to agree, you can be convicted of a crime, not that any belief is a crime or anything like that.

That's all. It has meaning, but only what its meaning is meant to mean.

If you take the position that you don't know if a deity exists or has ever existed, then by default you are acknowledging that you don't believe in a deity.

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics like to change the subject by getting into the whole ' it's unknowable' thing. Nice try, but the only relevant question is: do you believe?

They don't at all.

Otherwise, you are just an atheist with an identity problem.

Doc, are you familiar with Thomas Huxley?

He came up with the agnostic position in order to keep Darwin's money coming in. Atheist was too extreme a position, so agnostic was a nice diversion. It still means you don't believe in god, but you sound more reasonable because you take the position that you can't know.

If you take the position that you don't know if a deity exists or has ever existed, then by default you are acknowledging that you don't believe in a deity.

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics like to change the subject by getting into the whole ' it's unknowable' thing. Nice try, but the only relevant question is: do you believe?

They don't at all.

Otherwise, you are just an atheist with an identity problem.

Doc, are you familiar with Thomas Huxley?

He came up with the agnostic position in order to keep Darwin's money coming in. Atheist was too extreme a position, so agnostic was a nice diversion. It still means you don't believe in god, but you sound more reasonable because you take the position that you can't know.

What about someone that thinks it is very likely that a god exists? Someone that believes, but doesn't claim to know.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

So now turn your argument into one that doesn't rest on a fallacy - one where you don't leave out the second 'some'.

Something like:
Some atheists approach their disbelief with ardor or faith, therefore some atheists are really just as religious as theists.

Of course, this would require that you modify your other claims as well - like, perhaps, saying 'Some people treat atheism as (a/their) religion' rather than 'Atheism is a religion'. The first statement I'd have to agree with, as there are in all probability atheists who disbelieve 'on faith' (although, honestly, I've only ever met one that was anywhere near that description). The second statement is no better than trying to claim "Numbers are prime" simply because some are.

Honestly, I don't really expect that to happen, though. It's never stopped you before, and it certainly didn't stop you the last time it was pointed out that some is not all.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Although I believe "life evolved" is true beyond all reasonable doubt, I find it hard to accept that it is a fact since the connection between similar species is theoretical. We can observe and count apples falling from trees and observe that none fall other than down. We can't do the same with life evolving because the process is too slow.

"Life evolved" is an entirely believable hypothesis and I cannot think of any other believable idea that explains the facts of the observable relationships of organisms within the taxonomic system and of components of organisms such as mammalian inner ear bones and fish and reptile jaw bones and the observable intermediate forms. But that does not make "life evolved" fact. We can say that taxonomy demonstrates the fact that many species are closely similar and can sensibly be put into related groups. We can go on and say that such groups can also be seen to be related to other groups which allows us to create supper group and so on. These things we can claim as facts, but making the step from that to the idea that one species can give rise to distinct "daughter" species is strictly theory. It is an explanation of how taxonomic relatedness comes about and hence how all life is probably related. Natural selection is the icing on that particular cake and genetic analysis removes the "probably".

The problem is that the language is not well adapted to this particular task. People want truth, proof and certainty when those concepts are inapplicable. They neglect the fact that even within a court of law the jury is asked only to find whether the charge is true beyond all reasonable doubt and to declare the case not proven, in one terminology or another, otherwise. People want theories they approve of or believe in to be facts, but theories (or hypotheses, explanations or ideas) and facts are two distinct logical entities.

Within this conceptual framework, falsifiable theories, hypotheses, and explanations are logically indistinguishable. I am, how ever, unsure of the nature of laws as in the case of the gas laws. The gas laws explain the relationship of the pressure, volume and temperature of gases in simple mathematical terms and so have the characteristics of theory. At the same time that behaviour can be demonstrated as simple observable fact given suitable equipment with very minor theoretical allowance for the impossibility of maintaining a completely closed system. Of course, we cannot be certain that someday an experiment will show the gas laws to be false, but that is virtually inconceivable. Here is the interesting thing! We could make the same argument about evolution. Its principles are so simple and its evidence so completely consistent that it is inconceivable that it is false and therefore it becomes as close to fact as the gas laws.

English

I think this is where the Gould quote comes into play. Given the preponderance of supporting evidence from multiple disciplines, I find it perverse to withhold provisional assent from "live evolved".

While falsification is always possible, I think falsifying "live evolved" is about as unlikely as "gravity exists" being falsified.

I said: Yes I know what I believe about deities. I believe that it is possible that one or more have existed, and it's possible that none have existed. It's possible, I haven't made up my mind yet either way. That's an honest answer.

That depends on one's definition of "honest."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

What don't you like about it?

I have never asked whether you believe it's possible deities exist, and yet that's the question you answered. Is giving an answer to a question that wasn't asked "honest"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'll concede that I did not answer that question, let me fix that. No, I don't think about agnosticism as a religion. I'm not sure how it would fit into the definition of religion.

Your well-rehersed definition of region is "a belief system held to with ardor and faith." You hold to your "I believe I don't know" belief system with ardor and faith, to the point of being unable to answer questions about it.

Huh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

But it's perfectly alright if you would like to think of it as a religion, or for that matter, if everyone on the planet did. It's just not a big deal.

It certainly is for you. You've gone on about some variation of it for hundreds of posts.

I have never asked whether you believe it's possible deities exist, and yet that's the question you answered. Is giving an answer to a question that wasn't asked "honest"?

Your well-rehersed definition of region is "a belief system held to with ardor and faith." You hold to your "I believe I don't know" belief system with ardor and faith, to the point of being unable to answer questions about it.

Huh.

It certainly is for you. You've gone on about some variation of it for hundreds of posts.

You are asking for a digital answer, when a digital answer would be misleading. I've answered, just not the way you would like, take it or leave it.

Ah, now it's about me, right? Anything to shift the conversation away from the point you were called on, got it. Really, it makes no difference to me if you want to cling to ignorance with ardor and faith. I'm ok with it.

Not really about you, but just the overlooking of the emotion within the post we were talking about. If you missed it, it's not without motivation.

So now turn your argument into one that doesn't rest on a fallacy - one where you don't leave out the second 'some'.

Something like:
Some atheists approach their disbelief with ardor or faith, therefore some atheists are really just as religious as theists.

Of course, this would require that you modify your other claims as well - like, perhaps, saying 'Some people treat atheism as (a/their) religion' rather than 'Atheism is a religion'. The first statement I'd have to agree with, as there are in all probability atheists who disbelieve 'on faith' (although, honestly, I've only ever met one that was anywhere near that description). The second statement is no better than trying to claim "Numbers are prime" simply because some are.

Honestly, I don't really expect that to happen, though. It's never stopped you before, and it certainly didn't stop you the last time it was pointed out that some is not all.

Atheists, by definition are religious.

There are many self described atheists that don't fit the definition. A lot of them are actually atheistic agnostics, IMHO based on their description of their belief. But then again, those guys probably wouldn't spend a lot of time online evangelizing.